Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Extremely unbalanced (though professionally polished and adorned with uploaded images) article written by the organization's webmaster and marketing advisor Benderson2 (talk • contribs). See also *Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉  03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * *(Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18) – Athaenara ✉  17:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Online Google searches for "Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation"
 * Clarification of nomination
 * Web: 11,000 (News:  0 [zero])

Searches for the same phrase WITHOUT the words "wikipedia" and "TREC"
 * Web: ~ 460

I've no doubt the projects in which the organization purports to involve itself are good. The question here is whether the article's content is verified with citations of sources unaffiliated with the organization itself. It isn't. The professional marketing job and the splendid photographs and diagrams make it look terrific, but it's not a good encyclopedia article, and an encyclopedia is what Wikipedia actually is.

Weeding out mirrors and blogs is tedious. Extensive copyediting of a lengthy and blatant public relations piece to extract the neutral encyclopedic content is tedious. But remember what Wikipedia is not?

It's not news that organizations try to use Wikipedia to make themselves seem more significant than they are. As User:BradPatrick said in his Corporate vanity policy enforcement post last September, the issue here is whether we are "losing the battle for encyclopedic content [to] people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes"—or not losing it. — Athaenara ✉  12:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 08:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)--
 * Weak keep: Although I am probably the biggest complainer about the POV of it and the poor editing quality and intent of Benderson2, I think the organization appears to have enough notability to remain. However, I think it would have to be torn apart and rebuilt properly (by someone with more time than I). -- Kickstart70 - T - C 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ONLYCREATEDFOR. If the article is subjective, then fix it. If it is poorly written, copy edit it. The fact is that the subject is largely notable from what I've seen and, if a little bit of work is put into it, this could be a good article. Hydrostatics 09:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment in response to Clarification On your google searching, you removed all instances of the word "TREC" - why? News sites or scientific journals or whatever wouldn't list the full name each time necessarily. It's like searching for "Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals -RSPCA." The German wiki has a link to a speech by German Parliamentary State Secretary Michael Müller mentioning TREC as well as a link to the Guardian website with an article regarding them . Another article written about them can be found on the German site Solarserver . Per WP:N:
 * "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."
 * We have enough evidence to suggest notability, and all other complaints with the article are reasons to fix it, and not delete it. Hydrostatics 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Hydrostatics, I missed your earlier question about my Google search test without (1) "wikipedia" & (2) "trec." Answers:  1 - to eliminate wikipedia echoes; there are many on any topic.  2 - to eliminate citations to many other organisations with the same initials in a search for information solely about this one; it's quite scarce.  — Athaenara  ✉  14:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the statements refer to the studies MED-CSP and TRANS-CSP wich are verifiable sources. If you want to read NPOV press articles (not press releases!) about TREC to compare the statements of the wikipedia article with, please have a look at The Guardian (also as pdf with pictures), the Solarserver and Der Stern.

There is no doupt that TREC exists and appears in the media, so deleting the article is not the correct way to fix problems with supposed POV. TREC is not a company, it is "an initiative ... in the field of renewable forms of energy" (first sentence in the arcticle), so it is a fault to include it in the list of Business-related deletions.

About the POV:
 * To save electricity from photovoltaics is much more inefficient than saving heat for CSP plants for day/night operation. Please show me another solar power technologie that's better for providing secure capacity before telling that it's just POV!
 * "Nach allgemeiner Auffassung" is translated in the article as "it's certain that", where it is more accurate to say "According to general opinion". OK, thats really my fault. If you find such expressions that can be written more neutral, then please do so. But I will not accept that someone deletes the article (or half of it) just to get rid of a concept he dislikes. Benderson2 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC) — Benderson2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Because Benderson2 normally works at the German Wikipedia and just translated and updated the TREC article which is listed as "Good Article" at the German Wikipedia.
 * I'm not sure what "to get rid of a concept [one] dislikes" refers to. If you meant to imply that I initiated an Afd because I'm against renewable energy sources, you're quite wrong.  If you meant something else, it would be civil to say what it was. — Athaenara  ✉  14:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a general statement. So, dear friend of renewables, what is your motivation to delete an article about the utilisation of renewables instead of improving it? Benderson2 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my Conflict of interest/Noticeboard* update if further clarification of my actual views of the issues pertinent here are sought. — Athaenara  ✉  14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (*Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18) 50.0.205.124 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Relax, Benderson. There's little point to provoking an argument, is there? At this point, it's not so much an article as it is a corporate shill. I'll admit there's an article to be had here, but by the time the bulk of it has been properly re-written, it's not going to look anything like what it is at present. The nominator's right to a point - it looks like a marketing presentation, and I've seen a LOT of marketing presentations to know one when I see it. Is it easier to delete than to radically transform this article? To me, not really - there's some decent stuff in there once that can be used for a proper, encyclopedic article. Still, getting into a war of words isn't going to fix the article. It needs proper sourcing and wholesale removal of its slanted POV. I believe you'd be helping your article best by starting on that, instead of asking loaded questions. ;-) Sidatio 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hydrostatics. Assuming WP:NPOV can be applied to this article and some sources are added, WP:COI may not be a problem and this can be an encyclopedic entry. —   Scottjar   →   Talk   13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but this article needs a TON of work. It needs a re-write from an objective point of view like I need a million dollars. (In case you were wondering - yes, I really need a million dollars. Can you spare some?) I'll put it on my To Do list, but it's going on the bottom and I wouldn't be able to revisit it until at least next quarter, possibly later. It's properly tagged, but not delete-worthy. Sidatio 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On second glance, there's a case to be made for WP:SOAP:

"'To boost the construction of solar thermal power plants and wind turbines in MENA, the EU should support (emphasis added to show WP:SOAP example) a campaign to inform MENA governments that, over the lifetime of those plants, they would be a cheaper source of power than electricity generated from oil or natural gas. This would reduce the domestic use of fossil fuels (which are continuing to increase in price) and, at the same time, it would enable the sun-belt countries to produce clean power from their own deserts for local use and for export.'"


 * There's a salvageable article here, but a lot of it is stuff like this. At present, it reads like a corporate pitch - not an encyclopedic article. I think I'll bump this up on my priorities list, if no one else is going to do so. I still say keep it, but someone needs to beat the hell out of this thing with the Objectivity Stick. I'll get around to it if no one else does. Sidatio 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, but beat the hell out of this thing with the Objectivity Stick - and COI is a major concern here. A major rewrite will be necessary. -- Orange Mike 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not every bar-stool idea deserves an article. --Wtshymanski 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Benderson2 is making a large effort to fix some of the NPOV issues with the page currently. However I'm unsure if he understands the conflict he is in and will continue to be in, due to his role within the organization. Whether that has an impact here, I'll leave to your opinions. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 05:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.